Employment Law Midterm

exercising Law Midterm 1. DePeters, Co. is sued for sex discrimination on the grounds that standardisedly few women are hired beca usance fewer women than men achieve transient realises on a required manual dexterity and tangible aptitude interrogation. DePeters, Co. offers in its defense that even though fewer women score high enough on the test, a greater dowery of the expiration women are hired. The comp whatsoever maintains that, as a result, the percentage of women in the custody mirrors the percentage of available women in the labor pool. A group of women who took the test and failed file example.Explain the basis for the cause of action, and analyze the merits of the cause of action, employer defenses, and likely outcome. jump your response with applicable law. (Chapter 6) The women would file suit, alleging a violation of Title septenary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that the test has a disparate impact upon women. unconstipated though a greater perc entage of the passing women are hired, the employers do of arriving at the bottom-line figures should be scrutinized for disparate impact. This situation is similar to the case of computerized axial tomography v.Teal, 457 U. S. 440(1982), in which the Supreme Court held that the bottom-line result does not preclude employees from establishing a prima facie case, nor does it provide the employer with a defense. Although the percentage of the women in the workforce mirrors the percentage of available women in the labor pool, the test still results in fewer women passing it than men. Therefore, the test has a disparate impact upon women. The employers defense to this suit would be that passing the test is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ).DePeters would fence in that the job required manual dexterity and physical strength similar to that which is tested. If they were able to show that passing the test was reasonably necessary to their limited business, they may have a va lid defense against the claim. The burden of validation would be on DePeters to show the similarity between the positions and the test, and that the dexterity and strength were bona fide occupational qualifications. If they were unable to meet that burden, the women would likely be successful in their claim. 2. Shaun, a woman of Hispanic origin, waits tables at Mongomeys Restaurant.Phil, an Afri preserve-American local man of affairs who frequently brings clients to Mongomeys for lunch, dislikes Hispanics. As a result, he lies to the possessor of the restaurant and tells the owner that Shaun referred to him by an ugly racial epithet. Once this complaint is brought to Shauns attention,she is demoted from waitress to dishwasher. Shaun filed a Title septenary claim against Phil, even though Shaun works for Mongomeys, not for Phil. Analyze the basis for the cause of action, the troupe exposure, steps that could have been interpreted by the bon ton to reduce exposure, the outcome, and support for the outcome.Utilize applicable law in your analysis. Title VII is applied to employer-employee relationships. If a customer made it a hostile environment, then the employer would be liable towards the employee, but in this instance, the employee has sued the customer. Phil is a customer, not an owner or operator of Shauns establishment. Title VII states that (a) It shall be unlawful employment practice for an employer Here, we have to stop. Phil is not an employer of Shaun and cannot be held responsible under Title VII since this encompasses employment, not general discrimination.Shaun would need to study local state laws and ordinances to see what action she could take against Phil. Most likely, she has a slander charge against Phil rather than any kind of Title VII ruling. Though Phil brings clients to this restaurant frequently, this by no means makes him an employer of Shaun. That would make an ill-considered burden on everyone who encounters a waiter or waitres s since the customers could forthwith be considered that persons employer. Phil does not pay employment taxes for Shaun nor places her on his payroll, and any tips he has left have been for her services and do not constitute any kind of salary.Also, Phils office may contain less than 15 employees and not even under the realm of Title VII. No, Shaun needs to chase her employer, not Phil, the customer. Again, Shaun should investigate local ordinances and state laws to see what is out there to use against Phil. 3. Pugh worked for Sees Candies, Inc. for 32 years. He had started out as a dishwasher, worked his way up to vice president of production, and was also on the Board of Directors. When he was hired, he was told by the president and general manager, If you are loyal and do a pricey job, your future is secure. The president had a policy of still terminating employees for genuine cause, and that policy was continued by his successor. During the entire period of Pughs employment , his performance had neer been formally evaluated or criticized, andhe was never denied a raise or bonus. After the high society had set sales records for the Christmas and Valentines Day seasons, Pugh was called into the presidents office and told that he was fired. He was not given a reason for his discharge, but he suspects that he was fired because he objected to thesweetheartrelationship that the company had with the junction representing its workers.Does Pugh have a cause of action for wrongful discharge? If so, what could the company have done to minimize exposure? The court held that Pugh had stated a cause of action for wrongful discharge under an implied contract. The presidents statement and the policy of discharging only for nice cause created a contract offer that he accepted by continuing his employment with Sees. One of the exceptions to at-will-employment is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. This covenant is an implied contractual obligation to act in good faith in the fulfillment of each partys contractual duties.Under this exception, some(prenominal) employer and employee enter into a contractual relationship in which the particulars of why and when an employee can be terminatedare not specifically addressed in the agreement. When Pugh was hired, he was told that if he does a good job, his future is secure. Pugh could argue that he understood this statement as a promise by the company to continue employing him as long as he remained a good performer. The next factor to consider is the companys policy for termination. The company appears to have a very specific and well understood policythat states that it will only terminate employees for good cause.Although this policy may not be in writing in an employee handbook, Pugh could argue that this policy is implied and relates to all employment relationships, including his own. disposed(p) these facts, it appears that Pugh could prove that his termination was not in compli ance with the companys policy for terminations. Since the company would not give him a reason for his discharge, this further proves that he to the highest degree likely was not terminated for good cause. Also, since Pughs performance had never been evaluated or criticized in 32 years, it does not appear that thecompany could prove that he was terminated due to poor performance.